Creative Australia shocked the arts sector on Thursday when it announced that its Board had unanimously decided to drop Lebanese Australian award-winning multidisciplinary artist Khaled Sabsabi and curator Michael Dagostino as the artistic team to represent Australia at the 61st International Art Exhibition – La Biennale di Venezia. Here it is in full:

The Board of Creative Australia has made the unanimous decision not to proceed with the artistic team chosen for the Venice Biennale 2026.

Creative Australia is an advocate for freedom of artistic expression and is not an adjudicator on the interpretation of art. However, the Board believes a prolonged and divisive debate about the 2026 selection outcome poses an unacceptable risk to public support for Australia’s artistic community and could undermine our goal of bringing Australians together through art and creativity.

Creative Australia will be reviewing the selection process for the Venice Biennale 2026.

The backflip was announcement just nine days after the pair were named as Australia’s next Venice Biennale team. So WTF happened?!

It all hinges on subject matter featured in Sabsabi prior work. ArtsHub gets into the details: 

Their appointment brought fresh attention to several of Sabsabi’s early works, including You, a 2007 video installation featuring Hassan Nasrallah, the recently assassinated leader of the Hezbollah, reciting words that were spoken at a victory rally at the end of a month-long war with Israel in the south of Lebanon. Another work, Thank You Very Much (2006), depicts a video rendering of the 9/11 attacks.

Sabsabi and his family fled the Lebanese Civil War in 1977 when he was still a child, moving to Australia. For over 35 years, his arts practice has viewed the world through a critical lens.

Recently appointed Shadow Minister for Science and the Arts Senator Claire Chandler used Question Time on Thursday to challenge Foreign Minister Penny Wong on the appointment, asking “With such appalling antisemitism in our country, why is the Albanese government allowing a person who highlights a terrorist leader in his artwork to represent Australia on the international stage at the Venice Biennale?” Wong was quick to distance the government from the artwork and the decision.

Reportedly Federal Arts Minister Tony Burke spoke to senior figures at Creative Australia on Thursday. Following that, the Board met and the decision to rescind the opportunity was made. Burke claims no involvement in the decision, but did state he was shocked by “some of [Sabsabi’s] works”. In a statement Chandler claims it is unacceptable that Burke distance himself from the debacle and pass the buck to the Creative Australia Board.

Obviously disappointed by the decision, Sabsabi spoke to Hyperallergic and took to Instagram in response, including a pledge to presenting the work through community support.

Social media content: Khaled Sabsabi’s Instagram post responding to the decision to rescind the offer to exhibit in the Australian Pavilion at the Venice Biennale 2026.

Here is some other responses I have seen:

Social media content: e-flux’s Instagram post sharing a letter from the other projects shortlisted to exhibit in the Australian Pavilion at the Venice Biennale 2026 responding to the decision to rescind the offer to Khaled Sabsabi.

Social media content: Kate Just’s Instagram post responding to the decision to rescind the offer to Khaled Sabsabi to exhibit in the Australian Pavilion at the Venice Biennale 2026.

The National Association for the Visual Arts (NAVA) put out statements decrying the decision.

Social media content: NAVA’s Facebook post sharing their statement about Creative Australia’s decision to rescind the offer to Khaled Sabsabi to exhibit in the Australian Pavilion at the Venice Biennale 2026.

Creative Australia has also seen a number of resignations because of the decision: celebrated artist Lindy Lee resigned from Board and Simon Mordant resigned as an International Ambassador for Australia’s participation at the Venice Biennale and withdrew his donation to the 2026 exhibition. In the past Mordant has twice been the Australian Commissioner at the Venice Biennale). Mikala Tai stepped down as the Head of Visual Arts, as did Tahmina Maskinyar, Program Manager, Visual Arts.

As I said on my social media accounts, it is hard not to see the situation as anything more than political pandering. It’s horrendously ironic that Creative Australia’s reasoning for removing Khaled – “… prolonged and divisive debate about the 2026 selection outcome poses an unacceptable risk to public support for Australia’s artistic community and could undermine our goal of bringing Australians together through art and creativity” – could be its own undoing.

Chandler told Sky News that there is a need for a “rethink of how taxpayer money is spent in the arts.” With her government efficiency hat on, will Jacinta Nampijinpa Price see the value and importance of arms-length arts funding decisions or will independent arts grants be deemed ‘wasteful’ in a Dutton government? Welcomes to Country are on the chopping block post the Voice referendum so it is not hard to imagine arms-length arts grants will be too.  The whole Creative Australia agency may be deemed inefficient.

Greens arts spokesperson Senator Sarah Hanson-Young is calling for an independent inquiry into the matter and told the ABC: 

“It’s an appalling capitulation that has put arts policy in Australia into crisis.

It has undermined the entire integrity and credibility of the newly formed Creative Australia.

Artistic expression must be free from political interference and intimidation.”

Poet and Greens candidate for Blaxland Omar Sakr also called out the decision and expressed concern for how the ordeal will impact the perception of the arts agency:

“Creative Australia is meant to be ‘arm’s length’ from the minister and the government and this decision showcases that they are not. The board has shamed themselves forever.”

I agree. I also agree with NAVA that it “undermines the integrity of independent arms-length arts funding and threatens the essential role of artists in shaping critical dialogue and public discourse.” And I agree with Mordant that the decision is “a blow for the reputation of Australian art.”

All this genuinely has me concerned for the future of the National Cultural Policy Revive and the Creative Australia agency itself – regardless the colour of government after the next election. Let’s face it though, it’s death knell is more likely to be tolling under a Dutton government and polls are pointing to just that (although that could be more difficult for Dutton if he is forced to make a minority government).

What’s worth reading on the announcement and rescinding of Sabsabi’s exhibition at the Venice Biennale 2026:

Venice Biennale 2026

Thursday 13 February 2025

Creative Australia

Artists criticise Creative Australia’s decision to drop Khaled Sabsabi and Michael Dagostino from Venice Biennale

Hannah Story – Friday 14 February 2025

ABC Arts and ABC News, Australian Broadcasting Corporation

NAVA statement in support of artist Khaled Sabsabi

Penelope Benton – Friday 14 February 2025

National Association for the Visual Arts

More to read on the things mentioned in this listing:

Arts & politics ⌇ Creative Australia ⌇ Artistic freedom

Elon Musk’s attacks on OpenAI continued this week with a Musk-led consortium making a $97.4 billion (USD) bid to buyout the OpenAI nonprofit entity’s stake in the OpenAI profit making capped-profit subsidiary. OpenAI’s structure is complicated, so here’s an org chart to help you understand what’s going on here:

Image: A graphic representation of OpenAI’s current organisational structure.

To say, ‘It’s complicated’ in relation to Musk and OpenAI’s relationship is an absolute understatement. And Musk’s true intentions here are not easy to ascertain. He may be saying he will make sure OpenAI returns “to the open-source, safety-focused force for good it once was” but it is more likely Musk is trying to throw yet more spanners at the works of OpenAI’s plans to transition to a for-profit benefit corporation.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said in an interview that OpenAI was not for sale and took to X to decline the offer:

Social media content: Sam Altman’s X post declining the Musk-led consortium’s buyout bid.

Here’s my rundown of the key dates and events leading up to this latest move ⟨ and bear with me as it is a confusing, messy ride! ⟩ :

Musk co-founded OpenAI with Sam Altman and others. From the beginning it was founded as a nonprofit. The organisation realised that its nonprofit structure created limitations to its growth and sustainability. In late 2017 Musk attempted an unsuccessful takeover with the intention of making OpenAI a for profit entity. In February 2018 Musk existed OpenAI.

Through 2018 OpenAI ramped up AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → R&D, including introducing Generative Pre-trained Transformers (GPTs), the technology that led to its GPT models and ultimately to ChatGPT being released in 2022. In 2019 the organisation established a capped-profit subsidiary, with the new body quickly securing investment from Microsoft. The OpenAI–Microsoft relationship would grow through further investment and integration of GPT technologies into Microsoft products.

In March 2023 GPT-4 was released, limited to paid ChatGPT Plus accounts marking a significant shift in moneymaking by OpenAI. The organisation opened a London office in June. In July Musk launched his competitor xAI. Further international expansion saw a Dublin office opened in September ⟨ probably for Ireland’s infamously favourable business tax arrangements. ⟩ At the end of 2023 Altman was removed as CEO only to be reinstated days later.

⟨ A quick aside here as you may be wondering why OpenAI aims to shift to a for-profit benefit corporation. The simplest answer is money. Running AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → systems is expensive. Under the combination of a nonprofit and capped-profit entity structure they currently use, there is a limit to how much profit they can make in the for-profit arm. Everything above the cap must funnel into the nonprofit. But the for-profit body has signifiant operating and human resources costs. As a for-profit benefit corporation there is no limit on profit. ⟩

Now here we are in 2025. In January o3-mini was released and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice weighed in on the antitrust claim and Musk is making public pledges to buy out the OpenAI nonprofit’s stake in the for-profit subsidiary; an offer three days later he threatened to withdraw if the organisation stopped its move to a for-profit entity. Of course, it is an empty threat given the offer has been rejected by OpenAI.

All in all, this is a confusing mess – and I think Musk wants it that way.

⟨ This is just my CliffNotes. For a much more complete overview I recommend Timelines Wiki’s marvelously meticulous timeline. ⟩

What’s worth reading on Musk’s latest takeover attempt on OpenAI:

Elon Musk-led group makes $97 billion bid for control of OpenAI

Arsheeya Bajwa, Anna Tong and Krystal Hu – Tuesday 11 February 2025

Reuters

OpenAI and Elon Musk

Tuesday 5 March 2024

OpenAI

Elon Musk owning OpenAI would be a terrible idea. That doesn’t mean it won’t happen

Chris Stokel-Walker – Wednesday 12 February 2025

The Guardian

Timeline of OpenAI

Updated Tuesday 11 February 2025

Timelines Wiki, Issa Rice

More to read on the things mentioned in this listing:

AI (artificial intelligence) ⌇ AI guardrails, safe & responsible AI, etc ⌇ Elon Musk ⌇ Financing AI ⌇ Microsoft ⌇ OpenAI

Two weeks ago DeepSeek seemingly emerged from nowhere challenging a lot of assumptions about AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  →, including the supremacy of Silicon Valley and the cost of training AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → systems. Now OpenThinker-32B, a new open-source AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → model trained on significantly less data than DeepSeekA Chinese AI company that caused a stir in January 2025 with two LLMs that challenged Sillicon Valley’s AI dominance. Learn more  →, promises greater efficiency and lower training costs.

A recent verdict in a copyright and AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → court case could undermine cost saving on AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → training if AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → training data is not considered a ‘fair use’ and must be paid for. ⟨ Okay, so I might be overstating the potential impact of the case because there are factors limiting its wider application to other AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → copyright cases, but it is still an interesting development. ⟩ On Tuesday US District Court of Delaware judge Stephanos Bibas found in favour of Thomson Reuters in their copyright infringement case against legal AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → startup Ross Intelligence. It is one of a number of similar cases looking at the legality of web scraping to train AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → systems. The summary judgement held that the use of Westlaw’s editorial content for AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → did not constitute a ‘fair use’.

While it is an interesting and potentially important finding, there are factors that may limit the finding’s persuasiveness in other AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → and copyright cases. In particular, the case involved non-generative AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → while many other cases are related to generative AIWhen text, images and other content are generated by AI (hence why it is called generative AI). Learn more  →. Judge Bibas rejected Ross’ fair use defence because Ross was unsuccessful in securing a permission from Thomson Reuters, the use of Westlaw content was designed to create a competitor to it and, in this instance, material generated by Ross was similar enough to Westlaw’s content that it constituted copying. To make matters more complicated, Ross folded in 2021, claiming the case was a part of its failure.

What’s worth reading on the OpenThinker AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → model:

New Open Source AI Model Rivals DeepSeek’s Performance—With Far Less Training Data

Jose Antonio Lanz – Friday 14 February 2025

Emerge, Decrypt

What’s worth reading on the Thomson Reuters v Ross case:

Thomson Reuters wins an early court battle over AI, copyright, and fair use

Richard Lawler – Wednesday 12 February 2025

The Verge

‘Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v Ross Intelligence Inc’ Memorandum Opinion

Justice Stephanos Bibas – Tuesday 11 February 2025

US District Court for the District of Delaware

More to read on the things mentioned in this listing:

AI (artificial intelligence) ⌇ Copyright & AI ⌇ OpenThinker

This week I was interviewed for an as yet unreleased news article about challenges to Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. I also took up the topic of free knowledge of the Wikimedia platforms in a world of bendy truth in a panel titled ‘Future Heritage, Heritage of the Future’ at the Future of Arts, Culture & Technology Symposium (FACT 2025) at ACMI.

Musk is known to take aim at Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. Recent slugs include his criticism of verifiable sources for Wikipedia entries and diversity programs at the Wikimedia Foundation. In mid-January he bemoaned changes to his Wikipedia entry referencing the infamous right arm gesture from Trump’s inauguration and in late December last year he used a post on X to encourage people to “Stop donating to Wokepedia” because of its DEI spending.

Social media content: Elon Musk’s X post criticising changes to his Wikipedia entry comparing his arm gesture at Donald Trump’s inauguration to the Nazi salute.

Social media content: Elon Musk’s X post criticising editing practices on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation spending on DEI programs.

We all know where criticism of DEI escalated to as the Musk-led DOGE rampages through the US government culling at will under the guise of efficiency and ending ‘woke’ programs that ‘ignore merit’ in favour of factors like race, gender, or identity!

There is an irony that, in the face of attacks on free knowledge and the wiki platforms from Musk and other conservative commentators, the UN’s Digital Public Goods Alliance (DPGA) this week recognised Wikipedia a Digital Public Good – open digital solutions that play a critical role in the attainment of the sustainable development goals. Back in October last year the Creative Commons licences were also added to the Register of Digital Public Goods. Both are worthy additions if you ask me.

So much so that the Wikimedia platform’s role as free knowledge is a fundamental underpinning of the 10 year Strategic Plan I have been helping to develop for Wikimedia Australia. Between now and 2035 we will continue to grow free knowledge, strive for knowledge equity, build a stronger organisation and celebrate our community. You can view the draft Stategic Plan on Google Drive. We have an upcoming community event to discuss the draft Strategy. I encourage WMAU members and any interested party to attend or input in other ways.

On the lighter side: someone has created a reprieve from the doomscroll of algorithmic enshittification we endure on our social media with WikTok. It is an effectively limitless list of Wikipedia articles you can quickly flick through, repackaged with big images and short descriptions – and I’m here for it!

What’s worth reading on the challenges and recognition of Wikipedia:

The Right Takes Aim at Wikipedia

Sarah Grevy Gotfredsen – Thursday 30 January 2025

The Media Today, Columbia Journalism Review

What’s worth reading on Wikipedia being recognised as a Digital Public Good:

Wikipedia Recognized as a Digital Public Good

Wednesday 12 February 2025

Wikimedia Foundation

Find out more about Wikimedia Australia’s draft 10 year Strategic Plan:

Introducing Wikimedia Australia’s Draft 10-Year Strategic Plan – Share Your Feedback!

Elliott Bledsoe – Monday 10 February 2025

Wikimedia Australia

More to read on the things mentioned in this listing:

Bendy truth ⌇ Elon Musk ⌇ Wikimedia Australia ⌇ Wikimedia Foundation ⌇ Wikipedia